> I just prefer HN comments to be better reflections of reality.

You mean your particular version of it.

It's interesting to see you consistently missing this point.

You've decided LLMs are clearly more than just complex but mindless statistical models.

You've decided that based on, it seems, the very impressive things these tools are capable of.

Therefore if anyone claims they're just mindless stastical models--with or without any attached judgement as to their actual utility or usefulness--then they are ipso facto wrong.

(And yes I just used endashes, damnit!)

That's on you.

It is in fact possible to simultaneously believe that LLMs are mindless token predictors and that they're enormously powerful.

These are entirely orthogonal beliefs.

Heck you could equally believe that LLMs represent true emerging AGI and that they still remain deeply flawed and are only an incremental step along the path of automation.

Or somewhere in between.

And discussing that space of possibilities is, I'd hope, precisely what HN is for.